View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Operations Waste Analysis |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile NoEstimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | For a process that keeps people busy but creates little value, the method exposes waste. It directs attention to unnecessary movement, waiting times, rework, and overdelivery. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 10-30 min je Item | 45-120 min | 30-90 min | laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Waste Map, Prioritized Waste, Improvement Backlog | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | WasteLeanProcess improvement | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationForecastingFlow |